Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikington Crescent

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikington Crescent

Procedural nomination, article was put up for speedy deletion. There seems to be numerous iterations of this game, so this page may not be necessary. Caknuck 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The article is still around, what's the problem? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify your comment, please? I don't see what this page has to do with the article ... Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The comment was probably in response to the nom, who used the word "article" (and probably meant the page itself, which was put up for speedy deletion under the article criterion A7). Gracenotes^T § 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, I missed that. Thanks for clarifying, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- There seems to be a tendency lately to get rid of the whimsical, frivolous stuff (such as BJODN) lately, as a rather humorless faction is taking increasing control and trying to make this into an entirely serious, dull site. Some resistance is desirable. *Dan T.* 23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Resistance is futile. :P
  • More seriously, this nomination is not about BJAODN, so basing a recommendation on the principle of "resistance is desirable" is a bit 'WP:POINTy'. If you think that this page offers any actual value, please present your arguments so that they may inform those who happen upon this nomination. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The game does not seem to encourage any actual improvement to articles. So ... what is it's purpose on Wikipedia? If it's supposed to be just a game ... well, Wikipedia is not a gaming site. If it's just supposed to be a fun distraction while editing ... well, there are thousands of arguably better/more engaging games freely available online. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • But we need to recruit and retain editors, as I explained in the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter. Editing is not a zero-sum game, and if people can have a bit of fun, they're more likely to stay and edit articles, not less likely. Walton^One 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • True, but fun can be had in ways that involve improvement to articles. A 'fun' distraction that has little or nothing to do with the encyclopedia should not exist on Wikipedia; if the game involved improving articles (e.g. "make at least one improvement – fixing typos, improving style, adding references, adding cleanup/maintenance tags – to every article encountered"), I'd be significantly less inclined to support deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's harmless (if not somewhat redundant to other pages in project space). That's enough reason to keep it; it's not like the Wikipedia namespace is in need of cleanup. Mark as historical if needed. Deletion (archiving a page out of public sight) means deletion (eventually unretrievable revisions), and we may as well keep the page. Gracenotes^T § 06:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The reason this is valuable to Wikipedia is that it helps to stop us all getting too serious. --Bduke 07:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Completely agree with Bduke. Whole point of Wikipedia games are to keep us all loose. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the reasoning I've articulated in numerous similar MfDs, and in the essayWikipedia:Editors matter. Fun pages are useful because they strengthen the community. In contrast, I can't see that any possible good could arise from deleting this page; as we all know, deleted material is archived, so deletions don't even free up webspace. This page has potential value in maintaining a strong community and retaining editors; there is no way in which deleting it could be beneficial to Wikipedia. Walton^One 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant Delete - Not to appear like a humorless drone, but we are an encyclopedia. Sure, this isn't in the main namespace, but I just think this sort of thing is better kept offsite. Encyclopedia Britannica didn't have any color-by-numbers or popup books.  ;-) /Blaxthos 12:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Highgate. >Radiant< 11:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I agree with Black Falcon's comments that Wikipedia is not about games, but I think that this type of page tends to improve the project since it encourages users to view articles that they may not necessarily be looking for. And if they stop the game for a second to do some cleanup, add a reference, or promote the article, I see no real harm done. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.